A denial of the universal church is absurd.

christundivided said:
So you believe in a universal application but you destroy it by denying a practical application in this present age. Isn't this position self defeating?

How am I denying that there's a practical application?

cu said:
I have mentioned this before, but  I don't understand how you can practically believe that all the members of the "body" given for edification of the "church" can practically apply to any local assembly.

I would like to remind you that are very found of certain writers. You have gleamed instruction, comfort, and direction from their writings/teachings. These same individual aren't part of your local assembly.

It is impossible to apply

Rom 12:4  For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,
Rom 12:5  so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Without a proper view of the universal church. Impossible. You can't deny the gifts of God given to the body of Christ is present in every believer. Your small local assembly does not a "full body" make...

I don't see why you have to stretch the analogy of a body like that to extend beyond the local church.  It is possible to learn from other Christians in a variety of contexts, as you pointed out, but that learning or blessing from other Christians doesn't necessitate that the exchange is what defines a body/church.

cu said:
I understand the desire for some to believer their local church is the end all of all things...

That may be the desire for some, and their selfish or arrogant motivation to believe in the uniqueness or exclusivity of their local church, but it's not mine.  I've never subscribed to the notion that ours is the only one doing it right.  Matter of fact, the picture painted in Revelation of the general state of churches shows me that there can be a variety of types of churches, and none of them perfect.
 
ALAYMAN said:
How am I denying that there's a practical application?

You're making the practical application only apply to the local church..... without applying it practically to the universal church.
I don't see why you have to stretch the analogy of a body like that to extend beyond the local church.  It is possible to learn from other Christians in a variety of contexts, as you pointed out, but that learning or blessing from other Christians doesn't necessitate that the exchange is what defines a body/church.

I didn't stretch it. God defined it. You have to admit that God's gifts in the universal church has been of benefit to you. People outside your local assembly have helped you. Helped you grow. Helped you in so many ways you can't even remember them all.

Let me throw another verse at you.

Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Is a reference exclusively to the local church?

Here's another one.

Heb 11:39  And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Can you see the perfecting of the body in all those in Christ Jesus? So, do you see ANY connection?

That may be the desire for some, and their selfish or arrogant motivation to believe in the uniqueness or exclusivity of their local church, but it's not mine.  I've never subscribed to the notion that ours is the only one doing it right.  Matter of fact, the picture painted in Revelation of the general state of churches shows me that there can be a variety of types of churches, and none of them perfect.

Well, I wouldn't be claiming there is only 7 types of individual congregation in existence. I think that is rather silly. However, I seem to remember the church in Philadelphia was doing a rather good job.
 
christundivided said:
ALAYMAN said:
How am I denying that there's a practical application?

You're making the practical application only apply to the local church..... without applying it practically to the universal church.

The application to the church addressed in the passage is the catching away of the saints (the rapture).  By logical implication, if one is a saint, then they will also be included.  And since those people being addressed were not raptured, then either the promise was untrue (making God a liar, which obviously is untenable) or it is meant for a church (or churches) that would exist at some point in the future.  Thirdly, if there is no such thing as a universal church, as I am contending, there is no entity that an application is necessary for.

cu said:
I didn't stretch it. God defined it. You have to admit that God's gifts in the universal church has been of benefit to you. People outside your local assembly have helped you. Helped you grow. Helped you in so many ways you can't even remember them all.

Many people have benefited me outside my local church, many of them not Christians.  Those who benefit/teach me outside of my local church aren't a part of the universal church merely because they benefited/helped me are they?  My point is that you are assuming facts not entered into evidence when you say that all Christians outside my local church who help me are by definition the universal church.

cu said:
Let me throw another verse at you.

Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Is a reference exclusively to the local church?

Here's another one.

Heb 11:39  And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Can you see the perfecting of the body in all those in Christ Jesus? So, do you see ANY connection?

God can provide many different means of perfecting us, the church being one, but not the only one.  Those who God uses to perfect us, even limiting that population to only Christians, does not define the term "church" in the Scriptures.

cu said:
Well, I wouldn't be claiming there is only 7 types of individual congregation in existence. I think that is rather silly. However, I seem to remember the church in Philadelphia was doing a rather good job.

I wasn't saying that there are only 7 types of Churches, but rather that your charge that some Christians think that their church is the only one doing it right is not representative of my opinion about mine.
 
ALAYMAN said:
christundivided said:
ALAYMAN said:
How am I denying that there's a practical application?

You're making the practical application only apply to the local church..... without applying it practically to the universal church.

The application to the church addressed in the passage is the catching away of the saints (the rapture).  By logical implication, if one is a saint, then they will also be included.  And since those people being addressed were not raptured, then either the promise was untrue (making God a liar, which obviously is untenable) or it is meant for a church (or churches) that would exist at some point in the future.  Thirdly, if there is no such thing as a universal church, as I am contending, there is no entity that an application is necessary for.

cu said:
I didn't stretch it. God defined it. You have to admit that God's gifts in the universal church has been of benefit to you. People outside your local assembly have helped you. Helped you grow. Helped you in so many ways you can't even remember them all.

Many people have benefited me outside my local church, many of them not Christians.  Those who benefit/teach me outside of my local church aren't a part of the universal church merely because they benefited/helped me are they?  My point is that you are assuming facts not entered into evidence when you say that all Christians outside my local church who help me are by definition the universal church.

cu said:
Let me throw another verse at you.

Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,

Is a reference exclusively to the local church?

Here's another one.

Heb 11:39  And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40  God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Can you see the perfecting of the body in all those in Christ Jesus? So, do you see ANY connection?

God can provide many different means of perfecting us, the church being one, but not the only one.  Those who God uses to perfect us, even limiting that population to only Christians, does not define the term "church" in the Scriptures.

cu said:
Well, I wouldn't be claiming there is only 7 types of individual congregation in existence. I think that is rather silly. However, I seem to remember the church in Philadelphia was doing a rather good job.

I wasn't saying that there are only 7 types of Churches, but rather that your charge that some Christians think that their church is the only one doing it right is not representative of my opinion about mine.

I can see no matter what I say, it will not change your mind. I'll just let it sink in.

I think you'll see that your really grasping at straws to defend your belief. Brother, we are fellow labors. We are members of one body in Christ Jesus. We are not complete without one another. Our God given gifts are for ONE ANOTHER.

Enough said.
 
christundivided said:
I can see no matter what I say, it will not change your mind. I'll just let it sink in.

I think you'll see that your really grasping at straws to defend your belief. Brother, we are fellow labors. We are members of one body in Christ Jesus. We are not complete without one another. Our God given gifts are for ONE ANOTHER.

Enough said.


I'm a firm believer in the truth that good men can agree to disagree <particularly on nonessentials>, so in that vein, I have no qualm with you sincerely believing that in time I will come around to what you perceive to be a vital Biblical truth.  Of course I believe, as Luther well said, that unless persuaded by conscience or Holy writ I must stand in what I believe Scriptures to be teaching.  It's a Baptist distinctive to not use coercion, but rather liberty of conscience and persuasion to change men's minds.

Having said that, I totally agree that we can benefit from one another, and I have benefitted, but such a benefit does not Scripturally warrant the (re)defining of the term "church" as it is used in Scriptures.
 
The uses of the word church are threefold, but none of these are in relation to a universal church.

The first and most common usage is for a local assembly.
Acts 9:31, 11:22, 13;1, etc
Romans 16:1
1 Corinthians 1:2
2 Corinthians 8:1

The second is the least common, and refers to assemblies not recognized as local churches
Acts 7:38

The third is the references to which some attribute a "universal church", but they are references using the word church in an institutional sense.
Matthew 16:18
Matthew 18:17
Galatians 1:13
Ephesians 1:22
Ephesians 5:23
- among others

By institutional, I mean in a generic sense. For instance, I might say to my child, "school is good, everyone should go to school". Not every local school is good, not every local school is appropriate, but the institutional idea of school is good. Everyone needs an education. (It's just an illustration of an institutional use of a word, not meant to be an argument of public school vs christian school vs home school vs the unschool movement)

In those references above the word church is used in an institutional sense, but applied in a local setting.
 
ItinerantPreacher said:
By institutional, I mean in a generic sense.

The problem with "institutional sense" is the same as those who deny using the word "universal." The word "institution" is not used in Scripture.

The gates of Hades will not prevail over the real body called "the church." It is absurd to say "the gates of hell will not prevail over the institutional sense of what we call church." There are way more problems with that concept.

In fact, it demeans the church. The church is a real group of people. While not gathered together, yet, real people belong to the church and Hades will not conquer these people. That is what makes Matthew 16:18 SO comforting!
 
FSSL said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
By institutional, I mean in a generic sense.

The problem with "institutional sense" is the same as those who deny using the word "universal." The word "institution" is not used in Scripture.

The gates of Hades will not prevail over the real body called "the church." It is absurd to say "the gates of hell will not prevail over the institutional sense of what we call church." There are way more problems with that concept.

In fact, it demeans the church. The church is a real group of people. While not gathered together, yet, real people belong to the church and Hades will not conquer these people. That is what makes Matthew 16:18 SO comforting!

Neither is the word universal
or rapture
or second coming
or amillenial
or pre tribulation
or mid tribulation
or pre wrath
or post tribulation

The words are used to express a particular meaning of belief.

When I read Matthew 16:18, I see that Christ said that there would always be local churches that represent what His definition of church. They would not all always exist, that is, every local church itself would not always exist, they might come and go due to varying circumstances, but there would always be local churches that reflect His definition of a church.

What you are saying is that there may be a time when there are no local churches that exist, but believers always will.

I find far less trouble with the institutional sense, far more of a promise, and far more power in it.

If the universal church is all that exists, and local churches disappear, how then do we practically follow Matthew 18:17?
 
FSSL said:
The gates of Hades will not prevail over the real body called "the church." It is absurd to say "the gates of hell will not prevail over the institutional sense of what we call church."

And it makes a liar out of Jesus. Local churches can and do fail, all the time.
 
ItinerantPreacher said:
When I read Matthew 16:18, I see that Christ said that there would always be local churches that represent what His definition of church. They would not all always exist, that is, every local church itself would not always exist, they might come and go due to varying circumstances, but there would always be local churches that reflect His definition of a church.

The promise does not say...
"The gates of hades will not prevail against all churches..."
"The gates of hades will not prevail against any church..."
"The gates of hades will not prevail against some churches..."

The promise says...
The gates of hades will not prevail against the church.

If the universal church is all that exists, and local churches disappear, how then do we practically follow Matthew 18:17?

The same way they did before the first local church was established in Acts 2. You do not have to belong to a local assembly in order to call our brothers/sisters to repentance.

I am currently in between membership in one church and another. This will be taken care of before the end of this month. Does that mean that I am not accountable to Matthew 18:17? Nope.
 
FSSL said:
ItinerantPreacher said:
When I read Matthew 16:18, I see that Christ said that there would always be local churches that represent what His definition of church. They would not all always exist, that is, every local church itself would not always exist, they might come and go due to varying circumstances, but there would always be local churches that reflect His definition of a church.

The promise does not say...
"The gates of hades will not prevail against all churches..."
"The gates of hades will not prevail against any church..."
"The gates of hades will not prevail against some churches..."

The promise says...
The gates of hades will not prevail against the church.

If the universal church is all that exists, and local churches disappear, how then do we practically follow Matthew 18:17?

The same way they did before the first local church was established in Acts 2. You do not have to belong to a local assembly in order to call our brothers/sisters to repentance.

I am currently in between membership in one church and another. This will be taken care of before the end of this month. Does that mean that I am not accountable to Matthew 18:17? Nope.

So we disagree on when the church started. I do not subscribe to the view that the church started at Pentecost, it started prior. Christ started the church, He was no longer physically present at Pentecost.

In Matthew 18 he gave them instructions that we are to follow, but it was given to them to follow then. It is a poor interpretation to say, "do this later, when this mystery is revealed" Matthew 18:17 tells us in some situations to go beyond simply "calling my brother to repentance". The point is, if he neglects to hear thee, then we are to tell it to the church. Impossible to do if this refers to the universal church. You are not by the way, supposed to "let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican" if he neglects to hear you, you are only allowed to do this if he neglects to hear the church.

I recognize that a "universalist" can follow to a degree the first two steps of Matthew 18:15-17. He can, to a degree, follow verse 15 and verse 16, but he cannot follow verse 17 except in a local church.

Of course you are accountable to Matthew 18:17 even if you are between churches, but you cannot follow it. You can follow verse 15, and you can follow verse 16, but until you have membership in a local church, you cannot follow verse 17.
 
ItinerantPreacher said:
I recognize that a "universalist" can follow to a degree the first two steps of Matthew 18:15-17. He can, to a degree, follow verse 15 and verse 16, but he cannot follow verse 17 except in a local church.

And since no one who believes in the universal church deniies the existence of the local church (quite unlike the converse), this poses no problem whatever for us.
 
Well folks, if there is no such thing as the "Church Universal/Invisible " then you guys are just plain out of luck cause my local church will be the one taken/translated up.

 
Sorry Scott, I hit the wrong button. My bad. Perhaps you could change it?
 
Bob H said:
Sorry Scott, I hit the wrong button. My bad. Perhaps you could change it?

LOL! No worries. It doesn't look like we can moderate karma points, not that I'm concerned that my reputation will suffer!
 
Rom 12:4  For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
Rom 12:5  So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 12:13  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 12:14  For the body is not one member, but many.

Eph 1:22  And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph 1:23  Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Eph 5:29  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30  For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32  This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Col 1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


It seems that "the church" and "the body" are synonymous in a universal sense.

Was Paul a member of the local church at Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and Colosse? If not, how could Paul say "we" concerning members of each of these churches that he is a member of them all as "one body"?

This has to be "membership" in something bigger and more generic than a distinct local assembly.
 
AresMan said:
Was Paul a member of the local church at Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and Colosse? If not, how could Paul say "we" concerning members of each of these churches that he is a member of them all as "one body"?

This has to be "membership" in something bigger and more generic than a distinct local assembly.

Well, there you go making sense again.

Unless ... Paul was the original church hopper.  ;D
 
Top